@JohnDuffield re too users list: you've answered two questions using accepted physics (these got you a lot of rep), the other answers have been consistently downvoted
So your rep position does not lend any credibility to your pet theories, sorry.
If JR told us electrons are 511keV photons we wouldn't believe him either.
For example, Dirac's wave equation that you cite above is intended to be an equation to describe, roughly speaking, the evolution in time of the probabilistic description (the wave is a "wave of probability" in very rough terms) of a massive spin-1/2 particle. With that interpretation, it gives predictions that are in very good agreement with observations up to a certain precision; then it is not correct anymore (and you need another theory to better fit those more precise observations).
If you want to give to Dirac's equation another interpretation (as a concrete wave describing a force field, or whatever) you have to be able to produce predictions that fit with your interpretation and the related experimental evidence. But those predictions have to be testable, i.e. numerical, and therefore a certain mathematical apparatus is needed.
initial condition: $y=x^3$, iterative function $\sin(y)$
Fixed points are those that intersect the x axis The density of the rainbow gradient lines give the rate of convergence to the fixed point (the more spaced out, the faster the convergence) The underlying code need to be further refined before it can be applied to the logistic map
@yuggib : we have people here who dismiss those experimental facts because they don't square with something they've been told. And then they have to gall to refer to them as "your pet theories". I didn't invent electron diffraction. It wasn't me who came up with spherical harmonics. I didn't write the Wikipedia atomic orbitals article that said electrons exist as standing waves.
@0celo7 : pair production and annihilation are experimental fact. So is electron diffraction and the wave nature of matter. Go read the Wikipedia atomic orbitals article: "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves." And don't blame me if that doesn't square with some tosh you've been taught about the electron being a point-particle.
I don't make that claim. A photon propagates linearly at c. An electron doesn't. Now go and look at that evidence instead of dismissing it. What do you think happens in pair production? Magic?
If a question has a bounty, but you get the feeling it is probably a homework question ... is it okay not to answer it properly ... but just help out a bit?
$\lambda=4$ for the first 105 iterations Each surface is 5 values of k (except for the first one, which is k=1,2,3,4) Interesting features were noted The logistic map shows where we are in this Alien Space that is the logistic map
I'm curious about the properties of the electron as given in this PSE post. I always thought the electron was an excitation in the electron field. Apparently that's not true and it is a photon going round and round in a Dirac's belt configuration. I have some questions regarding this:
1) How doe...
Guys : 0celo7 has been dismissing hard scientific evidence and robust references in favour of kiddies' popscience he's picked up. I'll answer this question and hopefully clarify matters. Bear with me. — John Duffield35 secs ago
10/10 Heroic effort to revolutionize physics as we know it incoming!
Reminds me of some older posts having an absurd claim about someone getting hit by a high voltage line that arced when.. dont remember.. someone took a photo with a flash or something.
@Ocelo7: that is a frankly contemptible question. It's not a question but an attempt to call out another site member. Whatever your views on that site members posts this is not the way to air them.
We don't do public shaming here. Not under any circumstances.
If you don't like someone's post then downvote it, then go home and get a life.
I agree that, without the context of chat, it seems that way.
But given the extraordinary situation that has been going on here before, with many attempts to seriously understand what JD is on about, with him refusing to answer except through the main site, I don't think it's so bad.
My highest voted question on this site involves the skipping of rocks here. It sits at 11 up votes.
My second most up voted question actually has multiple candidates. However, in the spirit of fairness, I choose this one. It had a bounty, and was a question involving the derivation of a probabil...
@0celo7: dumb question: do you know how to make calendars default open the "calendar" itself (#apple + O)? I added some shared calendars to my calendar and now for some reason whenever I start calendars, it opens one of the shared ones instead of mine.
My highest voted question on this site involves the skipping of rocks here. It sits at 11 up votes.
My second most up voted question actually has multiple candidates. However, in the spirit of fairness, I choose this one. It had a bounty, and was a question involving the derivation of a probabil...
I'm curious about the properties of the electron as given in this PSE post. I always thought the electron was an excitation in the electron field. Apparently that's not true and it is a photon going round and round in a Dirac's belt configuration. I have some questions regarding this:
How does ...
Could we use a gravitational field to decrease our mass when travelling in space to allow potential gain in speed due to having a lower x amount of mass means you travel faster.
its basically "how many different CFT correlators can you compute looking for non-existent chaotic behavior before professor agrees on its non-existence"
How does a massless photon turn into a massive electron?
It's just E=mc². See Einstein's 1905 paper where he says "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". If you trap a massless photon in a gedanken mirror-box, the mass of the system is...
Ruby, 1368
95.times{|i|print (i*8%95+32).chr}
I tried all the single digit numbers and 8 gave the best result. Here are the others:
2->1757
3->1658
4->1466
5->not possible
6->1464
7->1477
8->1368
9->1906
@0celo7 : you got no mathematics because scientific evidence demonstrates the wave nature of matter. How many times have I told you about the difference between physics and mathematics? And you're still asking for mathematical evidence. FFS. On top of that Timaeus told you about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and you ignored his whole answer.